CHAPTER XVIII

ORGANIZATION OF THE PYTHAGOREAN SCHOOL

The next step to set forth how, after admission to discipleship followed distribution into several classes according to individual merit. As the disciples were naturally dissimilar, it was impracticable for them to participate in all things equally, nor would it have been fair for some to share in the deepest revelations, while others might get excluded therefrom, or others from everything; such discriminations, being unjust. While he communicated some suitable of his discourses to all, he sought to benefit everybody, preserving the proportion of justice, by making every man's merit the index of the extent of his teachings. He carried this method so far as to call some Pythagoreans, and others Pythagorists, just as we discriminate poets from poetasters. According to this distinction of names, some of his disciples he considered genuine, and to be the models of the others. The Pythagoreans' possessions were to be shared in common inasmuch as they were to live together, while the Pythagorists should continue to manage their own property, though by assembling frequently they might all be at leisure to pursue the same activities. These two modes of life which originated from Pythagoras, was transmitted to his successors. Among the Pythagoreans there were also two forms of philosophy, pursued by two classes, the Hearers and the Students. The latter were universally recognized as Pythagoreans by all the rest, though the Students did not admit as much for the Hearers, insisting that these derived their instructions not from Pythagoras, but from Hippasus, who was variously described as either a Crotonian or Metapontine.

The philosophy of the Hearers consisted in lectures without demonstrations or conferences or arguments merely directing something to be done in a certain way, unquestioningly preserving them as so many divine dogmas, non-discussible, and which they promised not to reveal, esteeming as most wise who more than others retained them. Of the lectures there were three kinds; the first merely announced certain facts; others expressed what it was especially, and the third, what should, or should not be done about it. The objective lectures studied such questions as, What are the islands of the Blessed? What are the sun and moon? What is the oracle at Delphi? What is the Tetractys? What is harmony? What was the real nature of the Sirens? Ñ The subjective lectures studied the especial nature of an object, such as, What is the most just thing? To sacrifice. What is the wisest thing? The next wisest is the naming of power. What is the wisest human thing? Medicine what is the most beautiful? Harmony. What is the most powerful? Mental decision. What is the most excellent? Felicity. Which is the most unquestioned proposition? That all men are depraved. That is why Pythagoras was said to have praised the Salaminian poet Hippodomas, for singing:

"Tell, O ye Gods, the source from whence ye came,
And ye, O Men, how evil ye became."

Such were these subjective lectures, which taught the distinctive nature of everything.

This sort of study really constitutes the wisdom of the so-called seven sages. For these also did not investigate what was good simply, but especially, nor what is difficult, but what is particularly so, ----namely, for a man to know himself. So also they considered not what was easy, but what was most so, namely, to continue following out your habits Such studies resembled, and followed the sages, who however preceded Pythagoras.

The practice lectures, which studied what should or should not be done, considered questions such as: That it is necessary to beget children, inasmuch as we must leave after us successors who may worship the divinities. Again, that we should put on first the shoe on the right foot. That it is not proper to parade on the public streets, nor to dip into a sprinkling vessel, nor to wash in a public bath. For in all these cases the cleanliness of the agents is uncertain. Other such problems were, Do not assist a man in laying down a burden, which encourages him to loiter, but to assist him in undertaking something. Do not hope to beget children from a woman who is rich. Speak not about Pythagoric affairs without light. Perform libations to the Gods from the handle of the cup, to make the omen auspicious and to avoid drinking from the same part (from which the liquor was poured out?) Wear not the image of a God on a ring, for fear of defiling it, as such resemblances should be protected in a house. Use no woman ill, for she is a suppliant; wherefore, indeed, we bring her from the Vestal hearth, and take her by the right hand. Nor is it proper to sacrifice a white cock, who also is a suppliant, being sacred to the moon and announces the hours.- To him who asks for counsel, give none but the best, for counsel is a sacrament. The most laborious path is the test, just as the pleasurable one is mostly the worst, inasmuch as we entered into the present life for the sake of education, which best proceeds by chastening. It is proper to sacrifice, and to take off ones shoes on entering into a temple. In going to a temple, one should not turn out of the way; for divinity should not be worshipped carelessly. It is well to sustain, and show wounds, if they are in the breast, but not if they are behind. - The soul of man incarnates in the bodies of all animals, except in those which it is lawful to kill; hence we should eat none but those whom it is proper to slay. Such were subjects of these ethical lectures.

The most extended lectures, however, were those concerning sacrifices, both at the time when migrating from the preset life, and at other times; also about the proper manner of sepulture.

Of some of these propositions the reason is designed; such as for instance that we must beget children to leave successors to worship the Gods. But no justification is assigned for the others, although in some cases they are implied proximately or remotely, such as that bread is not to be broken, because it contributes to the judgment in Hades. Such merely probable reasons, that are additional, are not Pythagoric, but were devised by non-Pythagoreans who wished to add weight to the statement. Thus, for instance, in respect to the last statement, that bread is not to be broken, some add the reason that we should not (unnecessarily) distribute what has been assembled, inasmuch as in barbaric times a whole friendly group would together pounce upon a single piece. Others again explain that precept on the grounds that it is inauspicious, at the beginning of an undertaking, to make an omen of fracture or diminution. Moreover, all these precepts are based on one single underlying principle, the end of divinity, so that the whole of every life may result in following God, which is besides that principle and doctrine of philosophy. For it is absurd to search for good in any direction other than the Gods. Those who do so resemble a man who, in a country governed by a king, should do honor to one of his fellow-citizens who is a magistrate, while neglecting him who is the ruler of all of them. Indeed, this is what the Pythagoreans thought of people who searched for good elsewhere than from God. For since He exists, as the lord of all things, it must be self-evident that good must be requested of Him alone. For even men impart good to those they love and enjoy, and do the opposite to those they dislike. Such indeed was the wisdom of those precepts.

There, was, however, a certain Aegean named Hippomedon, one of the Pythagorean Hearers, who insisted that Pythagoras himself gave the reasons for, and demonstrations of these precepts himself; but that in consequence of their being delivered to many, some of whom were slow, the demonstrations were removed, leaving the bare propositions. The Pythagorean Students, however, insist that the reasons and demonstrations were added by Pythagoras himself, explaining the difference arose as follows. According to them, Pythagoras, hailed from Ionia and Samos, to Italy then flourishing under the tyranny of Polycrates, and he attracted as associates the very most prominent men of the city. But the more elderly of these who were busied with politics, and therefore had no leisure, needed the discourses of Pythagoras dissociated from reasonings, as they would have found it difficult to follow his meanings through disciplines and demonstrations, while nevertheless Pythagoras realized that they would be benefited by knowing what ought to be done, even though lacking the underlying reason, just as physicians' patients obtain their health without hearing the reasons of every detail of the treatment. But Pythagoras conversed through disciplines and demonstrations with the younger associates, who were able both to act and learn. Such then are the differing explanations of the Hearers and Students.

As to Hippasus, however, they acknowledge that he was one of the Pythagoreans, but that he met the doom of the impious in the sea in consequence of having divulged and explained the method of squaring the circle, by twelve pentagons; but nevertheless he obtained the renown of having made the discovery. In reality, however, this just as everything else pertaining to geometry, was the invention of that man as they referred to Pythagoras. But the Pythagoreans say that geometry was divulged under the following circumstances: A certain Pythagorean happened to lose his fortune to recoup which he was permitted to teach that science, which, by Pythagoras was called History.

So much then concerning the difference of each mode of philosophizing, and the classes of Pythagoras's disciples. For those who heard him either within or without the veil, and those who heard him accompanied with seeing, or without seeing him, and who are classified as internal or external auditors, were none other than these. Under these can be classified the Political, Economic, and Legislative Pythagoreans.